RE: [topicmaps-comment] Cross-postings,definition of lists scope s,and community building.

["Mason, James David (MXM) " <mxm@ornl.gov>]

There's nothing secret about sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org. It came into being
along with the topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org when we decided to
reorganize the work that came out of the old TopicMaps.org. We're trying to
keep SC34/WG3 and the new OASIS TopicMaps.org aligned, but we're obviously
still in transition.

sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org is the ISO/IEC counterpart to the topicmaps-comment
at OASIS. Like the OASIS list, it is intended for conducting official
business, mainly taking decisions on draft documents between meetings. Also
like the OASIS list, it has controlled membership. In the case of the ISO
list, the actual posting membership is limited to experts certified by
national standards bodies or by liaison organizations. At the present, the
liaison that has appointed experts is ISUG; however, we are working towards
getting OASIS also to that state. The rules aren't something that were just
made up to keep people out of discussion; they are made, as are the rules at
OASIS, to protect due process for people who have made a committment to a
development organization and its processes.

In the meanwhile, the managers of the list (which is to say, Steve Newcomb,
Michel Biezunski, Steve Pepper, and I) have made provision so that anyone
can request to see postings, though only official delegates may post.

If you want to be added to the distribution, please go to
http://isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3 and subscribe.

I made my original deliberate cross-posting to three lists because (1)
discussion threads were seeming to wander across lists almost at random and
(2) I was concerned that not everyone who needed to hear things was hearing
them (as were other people, like Michel). 

For example, the discussion of TMCL and PMTM4 is technically a matter only
for the SC34/WG3 list because it concerns matters that are out for ballot in
ISO/IEC. However, because that discussion has to do with fundamental matters
about our understanding of Topic Maps, it's important for the whole
community to see it. While the discussion was just on the SC34 list, there
were some good exchanges going on (particularly between Steve N and Lars
Marius), and the particpants were getting better understanding of what they
were trying to model, how models interact, etc. Somewhere along the way, the
discussion migrated over to the other lists, however, and we got some more
good input. I'm in favor of getting that input. 

Nonetheless, there may come a time (as there will also on the OASIS list)
such as when we have to settle on a text and ballot it, when the discussion
will have to be restricted to official participants. In the meanwhile,
though, I'm in favor of having as many people as possible see the
discussions. (If the discussion gets too far afield, however, the people
responsible for the projects in SC34/WG3 may pull it back inside.)

If you want to follow the ISO discussion, sign up. Better yet, join a
standards committee or ISUG and be eligible to participate! (Quite a number
of the members of the old TopicMaps.org have joined ISUG or a national
committee just of that reason.)

Jim Mason

James David Mason, Ph.D.

Y-12 National Security Complex
Bldg. 9113, M.S. 8208
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8208

+1 865 574 6973

Chairman, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34
http://www.y12.doe.gov/sgml/sc34/ornlsc34oldhome.htm



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Murray Altheim [SMTP:murray.altheim@sun.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:32 PM
> To:	Bernard Vatant
> Cc:	topicmaps-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:	Re: [topicmaps-comment] Cross-postings, definition of lists
> scopes,and community building.
> 
> Bernard Vatant wrote:
> [...]
> > What I understand of the scopes of different lists:
> > 
> > -- sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > This list is for specification and standard technical debate. As a 
> > matter of fact, I'm not on this list, and like Scott, did not know its 
> > address before the recent spilling over. So I won't venture more on this
> > field. But, from the way I understood the recent reorganization, all 
> > technical debates we had in xtm-wg concerning syntax, data model, 
> > query language ... should go there.
> 
> I'm curious to know what are the parameters of this list: who is welcome,
> the exact scope of the discussion (according to the list maintainer), etc.
> Like Bernard, while I was intimately involved in the creation of the
> TopicMaps.Org XTM 1.0 Specification, I have never been invited nor even
> informed of this list. It seems that SC34 WG3 is not interested in my
> input, is no interested in widening the group performing the discussion,
> has not thought of these issues, or what? I'm trying very hard not to
> be insulted by not being included, as I would think any previous member
> of TopicMaps.Org might be.
> 
> Whatever the reasons, this doesn't seem like a very community-oriented 
> way for us all to conduct business. We have a small enough community 
> that having so many list servers is not only confusing but counter-
> productive to the general goal of building the community. I have since 
> the beginning felt that the separation between the ISO and TopicMaps.Org
> groups has been: the "important" work, and "everything else." This only 
> tends to reinforce that feeling, and remember: I'm not a newcomer. How 
> would they feel?
> 
> What I see happening (deliberate or not) is a schism between the ISO
> definition of topic maps, and what the rest of the world will do with
> them. I'm certain that this is not what the authors of the ISO spec
> want to occur, but the actions that have been taken in the past few
> months only reinforce this direction. In a recent message, Steve 
> Newcomb discussed what he thought a minimum set of requirements would
> be for a topic map engine. This certainly differs from the engines I've
> seen, and from the work I've done. ISO and ANSI committees are often
> seen as closed and isolated from industry, despite industry's involve-
> ment. If this ISO committee wants to counter that appearance, there
> should be some steps taken to open up their discussion. If this *isn't*
> the desire of the ISO committee (ie., keep it small so they can move
> more quickly, fewer people to deal with, etc.) then no action need be
> taken -- the consequences either way have their own pros and cons. 
> 
> If as I've heard in person before, we're all welcome, then the lack of 
> a welcome to all previous members of TopicMaps.Org is hard to understand.
> 
> Murray
> 
> ..........................................................................
> .
> Murray Altheim
> <mailto:murray.altheim&#x40;sun.com>
> XML Technology Center
> Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA
> 94025
> 
>       In the evening
>       The rice leaves in the garden
>       Rustle in the autumn wind
>       That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>